0 Up votes0 Down votes

8 views20 pagesgmm

Oct 02, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

gmm

© All Rights Reserved

8 views

gmm

© All Rights Reserved

- Neuromancer
- The E-Myth Revisited: Why Most Small Businesses Don't Work and
- How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking
- Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us
- Chaos: Making a New Science
- The Joy of x: A Guided Tour of Math, from One to Infinity
- How to Read a Person Like a Book
- Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything
- The Wright Brothers
- The Other Einstein: A Novel
- The 6th Extinction
- The Housekeeper and the Professor: A Novel
- The Power of Discipline: 7 Ways it Can Change Your Life
- The 10X Rule: The Only Difference Between Success and Failure
- A Short History of Nearly Everything
- The Kiss Quotient: A Novel
- The End of Average: How We Succeed in a World That Values Sameness
- Made to Stick: Why Some Ideas Survive and Others Die
- Algorithms to Live By: The Computer Science of Human Decisions
- The Universe in a Nutshell

You are on page 1of 20

Krenar Avdulaj

October 27th, 2014

GMM estimation was formalized by Hansen (1982), and since has become one of the most widely used

methods of estimation for models in economics and finance.

1. Unlike MLE, GMM does not require complete knowledge of the distribution of the data. Only specified

moments derived from an underlying model are needed for GMM estimation.

2. In some cases in which the distribution of the data is known, MLE can be computationally very

burdensome whereas GMM can be computationally very easy. (e.g. log-normal stochastic volatility

model.)

3. In models for which there are more moment conditions than model parameters, GMM estimation

provides a straightforward way to test the specification of the proposed model.

Short review

Consider the linear regression

yt = zt

t = 1,

,n

where zt is a Lx1 vector of explanatory variables, 0 a vector of unknown coefficients and t is a random

error term. Some of zt elements are possibly correlated with t (possibly being endogenous variable). In

addition assume xt is a vector of instrumental variables of size Kx1. Let wt represent the vector of unique

and non-constant elements of {yt , zt , xt } .

Basic idea

GMM estimator of in yt

= zt

E[gt (wt ,

)] = E[xt

] = E[x (y z

)] = 0

The idea is to create a set of equations for by making sample moments match the population moments.

Sample moments:

gn ( ) =

g(wt ,

) =

t=1

1

n

n

t=1

x1t (y

1

n

xt (y

z ))

t=1

n

t=1

xK t (y

z )

z )

= 0

xt yt

n

t=1

xt zt

=0

t=1

or

Sxy

S =0

xz

L.

If is just identified i.e. (K=L) and Sxz is invertible the GMM estimator of is

= S

xz

Sxy

If K

> L

there may not be a solution for (). Thus we need to find that makes () as close as possible

to 0 . Denote

W K xK symmetric and positive definite weight matrix such that

W

n

Wsym.p.d.

as

(

W ) is defined as

( W ) = argmin

J ( , W)

where

J( ,

W ) = ngn ( )

W gn ( )

= n(Sxy

S )

xz

W (Sxy

S )

xz

1

( W ) = (Sxz

W Sxz )

Sxz W Sxy

J-statistics

Value of the GMM objective function evaluated using an efficient GMM estimator.

J = J(

where

(S

(S

), S

) = ngn (

(S

)) S

gn (

(S

))

S a consistent estimate of S .

K = L

K > L

J = 0

J > 0

(K

L)

as

If the model is mis-specified or some of the moment conditions do not hold e.g.

E[xit

] = E[x

t

it

(yt

)]

for some i, the J-statistics will be large relative to 2 random variable with K-L d.o.f.

A large J-statistics indicates a mis-specification. It does not, however, indicate about the source of the

mis-specification.

Examples

Let us take the classical case

yt = xt

where xt = (x1t ,

, xmt ) is a vector of explanatory variables (all exogenous), 0 is a m -vector of unkown

coefficients and t a random error term.

where gt (wt , )

= xt

= E[xt

] = E[x (y x

)] = 0

t

[xi (yi

x )]

= 0

i=1

xi yi =

i=1

[n

xi x

i=1

[n

xi x

i=1

= (X X )

GMM

xi yi

i=1

X Y

OLS

As an example of a simple linear regression model, consider the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)

Rt

ft

for

+ (R

Mt

t = 1,

ft

) +

,n

R Excercise CAPM

Note: The code below is for exercise purposes only! In case you need to do some research on CAPM it is

advised to get a more precise risk free rate e.g. for the US from Kenneth R. French

(http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/ken.french/data_library.html) website, FRED

(http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/116) or some other trusted source. You should also

consider the time span of you dataset according to your research objectives.

Below, the S&P500 returns serve as market return proxy while Chicago Board Options Exchange (CBOE)

10y interest rate T-note as risk free rate (it is easy to obtain the data by using R command line). We

estimate using the CAPM model for Intel Corporation. You need to have internet connection to be able to

run this example! However, you can connect only once and download/save the data and then call them

locally anytime.

Load the tseries, zoo, lmtest and gmm package

rm(list=ls()) # clear the memory

library(gmm)

library(tseries)

library(zoo)

##

## Attaching package: 'zoo'

##

## The following objects are masked from 'package:base':

##

##

as.Date, as.Date.numeric

library(lmtest)

# get prices

SP500 = get.hist.quote(instrument = "^gspc", start = "1992-01-31",end="2005-12-31", quot

e="AdjClose",compression = "m")

INTC = get.hist.quote(instrument = "intc", start = "1992-01-31",end="2005-12-31", quote="A

djClose",compression = "m")

p <- cbind(SP500,INTC)

colnames(p) <- c("SP500","INTC") # rename column names

ret=diff(log(p)) # estimate continuous returns

Let us plot the data and see how the time series look like. In adition we also create the excess returns for

SP500 and INTC.

par(mfcol=c(2, 2)) # create a a subplot 2x2

plot(p$SP500,main="Price of SP500",ylab="price",xlab="")

plot(ret$SP500,main="Returns of SP500",ylab="return",xlab="")

plot(p$INTC,main="Price of Intel Corporation",ylab="price",xlab="")

plot(ret$INTC,main="Returns of Intel Corporation",ylab="return",xlab="")

rf <- get.hist.quote(instrument = "^tnx", start = "1992-02-01",end="2005-12-31", quote="Ad

jClose",compression = "m")

## time series ends

2005-12-01

par(mfcol=c(1, 1)) # reset graph for only 1 plot

plot(rf,main="CBOE 10y interest rate T-Note",ylab="risk free rate",xlab="")

ret <- na.omit(ret)

colnames(ret)[3:5] <- c("rf","exRetSP500","exRetINTC")

The purpose of this example is to estimate the CAPM model in three different ways (OLS, MLE and GMM)

and show that the results are the same i.e. (indeed) OLS and MLE are special cases of the GMM.

a. OLS estimation

This is straight forward using built in function lm (I am not going to code the OLS because you have

already done it in previous seminars.)

ols.model <- lm(ret$exRetINTC~ret$exRetSP500,data=ret)

summary(ols.model)

##

## Call:

## lm(formula = ret$exRetINTC ~ ret$exRetSP500, data = ret)

##

## Residuals:

##

Min

1Q

Median

3Q

Max

##

## Coefficients:

##

## (Intercept)

0.007363

0.008150

0.903

## ret$exRetSP500 1.810853

0.202574

0.368

## --## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

##

## Residual standard error: 0.1052 on 165 degrees of freedom

## Multiple R-squared: 0.3263, Adjusted R-squared: 0.3222

## F-statistic: 79.91 on 1 and 165 DF, p-value: 7.586e-16

##

## z test of coefficients:

##

##

## (Intercept)

0.0073635 0.0076591 0.9614

0.3363

## --## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1

b. MLE estimation

# extract only the data from returns series

exRetSP500 <- coredata(ret$exRetSP500)

exRetINTC <- coredata(ret$exRetINTC)

data=cbind(exRetINTC,exRetSP500)

We create the objective function which should be in the form of -LL and use the R optimizer optim.

Assuming the error term

N (0,

+ log )

(log 2

2

i=1

2

i

in the model (do not forget to take the negative of LL when you write the R function because we will use the

general optimizer optim and not the maxLik function). One of the ways how to do it is:

# MLE estimation

LL <- function(param,data=data){

y=data[,1]

x=cbind(1,data[,-1]) # # add the intercept and remove y (1st data col)

beta <- param[-1] # exclude the first

sigma2 <- param[1]

if(sigma2<=0) return(NA)

epsilon=y-x%*%beta # calculate residuals

# log-likelihood of errors

logLik=-0.5*(log(2*pi)+log(sigma2)+(epsilon)^2/sigma2)

-sum(logLik)

}

# The maxLik version would be (uncomment to try that you get the same result):

# library(maxLik)

# LL1 <- function(param,data=data){

#

y=data[,1]

x=cbind(1,data[,-1])

if(sigma2<=0) return(NA)

# log-likelihood of errors

logLik=-0.5*(log(2*pi)+log(sigma2)+(epsilon)^2/sigma2)

#}

theta.start = c(0.007,0, 1)

MLE <- optim(theta.start,LL,gr=NULL,data,method="L-BFGS-B",hessian=TRUE)

mle.param <- as.matrix(MLE$par)

fish <- MLE$hessian

stdErr <- sqrt(diag(solve(fish)))

tStat <- mle.param/stdErr

mle.model <- cbind(mle.param,stdErr,tStat)

rownames(mle.model) <- c("sigma2","alpha","beta")

colnames(mle.model) <- c("Estimates","Std. errors","t.Stat")

mle.model

##

t.Stat

## alpha 0.007373047 0.008123249 0.9076476

## beta

# The maxLik version would be (uncomment the lines below to try maxLik)

# MLE <- maxLik(LL1,start=theta.start,data=data,method="BFGS")

# coef(MLE)

Note: if your initial guess for the parameters is too far off then things can go seriously wrong! This applies

especially when objective function is (almost) flat or in boundary solutions.

c. GMM estimation

c. GMM estimation

Moment conditions for linear regression model (introduced in section 1) can be written as follows.

ols.moments = function(param,data=NULL) {

data = as.matrix(data)

y=data[,1]

x=cbind(1,data[,-1]) # add the intercept and remove y (1st data col)

x*as.vector(y - x%*%param)

}

start.vals=c(0,1)

names(start.vals) <- c("alpha","beta")

gmm.model=gmm(ols.moments,data,t0=start.vals,vcov="HAC")

summary(gmm.model)

##

## Call:

## gmm(g = ols.moments, x = data, t0 = start.vals, vcov = "HAC")

##

##

## Method: twoStep

##

## Kernel: Quadratic Spectral

##

## Coefficients:

##

Estimate

Pr(>|t|)

## beta

##

## J-Test: degrees of freedom is 0

##

J-test

P-value

## Test E(g)=0:

4.87416130913001e-11 *******

##

## #############

## Information related to the numerical optimization

## Convergence code = 0

## Function eval. = 77

## Gradian eval. = NA

print(specTest(gmm.model))

##

## ## J-Test: degrees of freedom is 0 ##

##

##

J-test

P-value

## Test E(g)=0:

4.87416130913001e-11 *******

Let us graphically check whether the estimates from different models are the same.

plot(exRetSP500,exRetINTC,main="Comparison of OLS, MLE and GMM")

abline(ols.model,col="blue")

abline(a=mle.param[2],b=mle.param[3],col="green")

abline(gmm.model,col="red")

legend('topleft',c("OLS","MLE","GMM"),lty=c(1,1,1),lwd=c(2.5,2.5,2.5), col=c("blue","gree

n","red"))

Indeed, as expected, the fitted lines overlap (we see only the last one, the red colour of the GMM).

1. MA(1) model

Yt =

+ + ,

iid(0, ),

(, , )

t

t = 1,

,n

| | < 1

] =

] =

] =

E[Yt ] =

2

E[Yt

E[Yt Yt1

E[Yt Yt2

(1 +

+ =

+

+

) =

+

where k is the autocovariance of lag k (when k=0 we get the variance. Autocorrelation of lag k is obtained

. What is maximum autocorrelation you can get for MA(1) process?). Notice that we have 4

k

The parameters we will estimate 0

, ,

= (

. Let wt

g(wt ,

= 0

y y

y y

yt

) =

yt

2

(1 +

at the solution 0 .

gn ( ) =

1

n

g(wt ,

) =

t=3

yt

t=3

yt

yt yt1

yt yt2

t=3

n

t=3

n

t=3

(1 +

Note: our sample now has size n-2 due to the 4th moment condition (time index t-2).

Since the moment conditions K=4 are greater than the number of model parameters L=3 0 is

overidentified and the GMM objective function has the form

J ( ) = (n

where

S is a consistent estimate of S

2) g ()

n

( ))

= avar(g

n

gn ( )

# function to compute four moments from MA(1) model

# y(t) = mu + e(t) + psi*e(t-1)

# e(t) ~ iid (0,sig2)

ma1.moments <- function(parm,data=NULL) {

# parm = (mu,psi,sig2)'

# data = (y(t),y(t)^2,y(t)*y(t-1),y(t)*y(t-2)) is assumed to be a matrix

m1 = parm[1]

m2 = parm[1]^2 + parm[3]*(1 + parm[2]^2)

m3 = parm[1]^2 + parm[3]*parm[2]

m4 = parm[1]^2

t(t(data) - c(m1,m2,m3,m4))

}

set.seed(345)

ma1.sim = arima.sim(model=list(ma=0.6),n=500)

par(mfrow=c(3,1))

plot(ma1.sim,main="Simulated MA(1) Data")

abline(h=0)

tmp = acf(ma1.sim,plot=F)

tmp2 = acf(ma1.sim,type="partial",plot=F)

plot(tmp,main="SACF")

plot(tmp2,main="SPACF")

par(mfrow=c(1,1))

summary(ma1.sim)

##

Median

Max.

# data = (y(t),y(t)^2,y(t)*y(t-1),y(t)*y(t-2)) is assumed to be a matrix

nobs = length(ma1.sim)

ma1.data = cbind(ma1.sim[3:nobs],ma1.sim[3:nobs]^2,

ma1.sim[3:nobs]*ma1.sim[2:(nobs-1)],ma1.sim[3:nobs]*ma1.sim[1:(nobs-2)])

start.vals = c(0,0.6,1)

names(start.vals) = c("mu","psi","sig2")

ma1.mom = ma1.moments(parm=start.vals,data=ma1.data)

head(ma1.mom)

##

[,1]

[,2]

[,3]

[,4]

## [2,] -0.2418895 -1.30148946 -0.5062747 0.07962193

## [3,] -0.6740394 -0.90567094 -0.4369569 0.26117091

## [4,] -1.3078362 0.35043556 0.2815331 0.31635188

## [5,] 1.1541366 -0.02796864 -2.1094217 -0.77793351

## [6,] 2.6812313 5.82900105 2.4945072 -3.50661133

Let us check the sample moment conditions mean. It should be close to population moments, i.e.0.

colMeans(ma1.mom)

var(ma1.mom)

##

[,1]

[,2]

[,3]

[,4]

## [2,] -0.22539703 3.0823141 1.4099666 -0.37816954

## [3,] -0.11198534 1.4099666 2.0915223 0.72412086

## [4,] 0.06846235 -0.3781695 0.7241209 2.02030788

cor(ma1.mom)

##

[,1]

[,2]

[,3]

[,4]

## [2,] -0.10974839 1.0000000 0.55531467 -0.15154420

## [3,] -0.06619396 0.5553147 1.00000000 0.35226625

## [4,] 0.04117479 -0.1515442 0.35226625 1.00000000

tmp = acf(ma1.mom)

Estimate the simulated data using GMM. We should use a HAC (heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation

consistent) estimator because the MA(1) process is autocorrelated (1

(1+

=

)

1+

start.vals = c(0,0.5,1)

names(start.vals) = c("mu","psi","sigma2")

# estimate using truncated kernel with bandwith = 1

ma1.gmm = gmm(ma1.moments,ma1.data,t0=start.vals,vcov="HAC",kernel="Truncated" )

summary(ma1.gmm)

##

## Call:

## gmm(g = ma1.moments, x = ma1.data, t0 = start.vals, vcov = "HAC",

##

kernel = "Truncated")

##

##

## Method: twoStep

##

## Kernel: Truncated(with bw = 2.44423 )

##

## Coefficients:

##

Estimate

## mu

-4.8682e-02

Std. Error

t value

Pr(>|t|)

6.6346e-02 -7.3376e-01

4.6310e-01

## psi

6.1822e-01

5.7027e-02

1.0841e+01

2.2051e-27

## sigma2

9.7198e-01

5.1216e-02

1.8978e+01

2.6013e-80

##

## J-Test: degrees of freedom is 1

##

J-test

P-value

## Test E(g)=0:

3.968984 0.046346

##

## Initial values of the coefficients

##

mu

psi

sigma2

##

## #############

## Information related to the numerical optimization

## Convergence code = 0

## Function eval. = 100

## Gradian eval. = NA

print(specTest(ma1.gmm))

##

## ## J-Test: degrees of freedom is 1 ##

##

##

J-test

P-value

## Test E(g)=0:

3.968984 0.046346

The GMM estimates are close to the parameters of simulated data. The low J statistics indicates the model

is correctly specified.

This example is from gmm vignette, which you can access from here (http://cran.rproject.org/web/packages/gmm/vignettes/gmm_with_R.pdf).

The ML estimators of the mean and the variance of a normal distribution are more efficient because the

likelihood carries more information than few moment conditions. For two parameters of a normal

distribution (, 2 ) the vector of moments condition is

E[g( , xi )]

E (x )

x ( + 3

2

= 0

g1 <- function(tet,x)

{

m1 <- (tet[1]-x)

m2 <- (tet[2]^2 - (x - tet[1])^2)

m3 <- x^3-tet[1]*(tet[1]^2+3*tet[2]^2)

f <- cbind(m1,m2,m3)

return(f)

}

If we provide the gradient of moment conditions to the gmm function it will be used for computing the

covariance matrix of

g ()

G

2(x

3(

Dg <- function(tet,x)

{

G <- matrix(c( 1,

2*(-tet[1]+mean(x)),

-3*tet[1]^2-3*tet[2]^2,0,

2*tet[2],-6*tet[1]*tet[2]),

nrow=3,ncol=2)

return(G)

}

set.seed(123)

n<-200

x1<-rnorm(n,mean=4,sd=2)

print(res<-gmm(g1,x1,c(mu=0,sig=0),grad=Dg))

6

2

## Method

## twoStep

##

## Objective function value: 0.01287054

##

##

mu

sig

## 3.8762 1.7887

##

## Convergence code = 0

print(summary(res))

##

## Call:

## gmm(g = g1, x = x1, t0 = c(mu = 0, sig = 0), gradv = Dg)

##

##

## Method: twoStep

##

## Kernel: Quadratic Spectral(with bw = 1.62663 )

##

## Coefficients:

##

Estimate

Std. Error

t value

Pr(>|t|)

## mu

3.8762e+00

1.2143e-01

3.1922e+01 1.3309e-223

## sig

1.7887e+00

8.3299e-02

2.1474e+01 2.7440e-102

##

## J-Test: degrees of freedom is 1

##

J-test

P-value

## Test E(g)=0:

2.57411 0.10863

##

## Initial values of the coefficients

##

mu

sig

## 4.022499 1.881766

##

## #############

## Information related to the numerical optimization

## Convergence code = 0

## Function eval. = 55

## Gradian eval. = NA

print(specTest(res))

##

## ## J-Test: degrees of freedom is 1 ##

##

##

J-test

P-value

## Test E(g)=0:

2.57411 0.10863

If we compare ML and GMM by using simulations we notice that ML produces estimators with smaller

mean squared errors than GMM based on the above moment conditions. However, it is not GMM but the

moment conditions that are not efficient, because ML is GMM with the likelihood derivatives as moment

conditions.

sim_ex <- function(n,iter)

{

tet1 <- matrix(0,iter,2) # preallocate space for theta 1

tet2 <- tet1

for(i in 1:iter)

{

x1 <- rnorm(n, mean = 4, sd = 2) # generate from normal distribution

tet1[i,1] <- mean(x1)

tet1[i,2] <- sqrt(var(x1)*(n-1)/n)

tet2[i,] <- gmm(g1,x1,c(0,0),grad=Dg)$coefficients

}

par(mfcol=c(2, 2),oma=c(0,0,2,0)) # create a a subplot 2x2

hist(tet1[,1],main="ML mean",xlab="est. mean")

hist(tet2[,1],main="GMM mean",xlab="est. mean")

hist(tet1[,2],main="ML sd",xlab="est. sd")

hist(tet2[,2],main="GMM sd",xlab="est. sd")

title(paste("ML and GMM estimated parameters comparison (sample size=",n,sep=" ",", sim

s=",iter, ")"), outer=TRUE)

bias <- cbind(rowMeans(t(tet1)-c(4,2)),rowMeans(t(tet2)-c(4,2)))

dimnames(bias)<-list(c("mu","sigma"),c("ML","GMM"))

Var <- cbind(diag(var(tet1)),diag(var(tet2)))

dimnames(Var)<-list(c("mu","sigma"),c("ML","GMM"))

MSE <- cbind(rowMeans((t(tet1)-c(4,2))^2),rowMeans((t(tet2)-c(4,2))^2))

dimnames(MSE)<-list(c("mu","sigma"),c("ML","GMM"))

return(list(bias=bias,Variance=Var,MSE=MSE))

}

set.seed(345)

sim_ex(100,200)# 100 sims of sample size 200

## $bias

##

## mu

ML

GMM

-0.01406445 -0.01619955

##

## $Variance

##

## mu

ML

GMM

0.04530069 0.05574631

##

## $MSE

##

## mu

ML

GMM

0.04527199 0.0557300

If we increase the sample size (sample mean approaches the population mean) to 2,000, we notice that the

GMM estimates improve, however the ML is still better.

set.seed(345)

sim_ex(100,2000) #100 sims of sample size 2000

## $bias

##

## mu

ML

GMM

-7.842598e-05 -0.01057923

##

## $Variance

##

## mu

ML

GMM

0.04078809 0.04754989

##

## $MSE

##

## mu

ML

GMM

0.04076770 0.04763803

Nice treatment of GMM (with examples) can be found in Chapter 21 of book Modeling Financial Time

Series with S-PLUS(r) (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0387279652/ref=rdr_ext_tmb) . There are parts from

examples above which follow this book.

- Santos Silva and Tenreyro 2006Uploaded byjohnwcajas
- predictability of nonlinear trading rules in the US marketUploaded byAng Yu Long
- Folien Econometrics I Teil3Uploaded byHumus
- 173232298 a Guide to Modern Econometrics by Verbeek 361 370Uploaded byAnonymous T2LhplU
- stat371_CouseNotes_S13Uploaded bythomas94joseph
- Housing Demand Assessment ModelUploaded bySumit Gehani
- Proposal 2Uploaded bymarielyyy
- Joc 1176Uploaded byGeorge Tsavd
- Chapter Four - LilanUploaded byLanka Essays
- ResultsUploaded byMaribel Siocon Dangallo
- Notas de clase - Regresión LinealUploaded byDiegoFernandoGonzálezLarrote
- Group 07 F 207 ExcelUploaded byMd. Safiqul Islam
- 財管Uploaded byCelia Chan
- When Hedging Makes a Portfolio Worse_Falkenstein_2003_ArticleUploaded byGallo Solaris
- Formulas for Calculating the Calorific Value of CoalUploaded byVuToanThang
- 1744-859X-5-3Uploaded byAlina Bledie
- Ch11 Experimental Design One Way Independent Samples DesignUploaded byMahesh Jada
- θ.docxUploaded byGuillermo Montes
- Capitulo7 GujaratiUploaded byPietro Vicari de Oliveira
- 9INFLU~1Uploaded byAnonymous TsMqnfXSL
- Output RegresiUploaded byRaka Kusuma
- 01_04_02GenderDifferencesinHealthUploaded byPhillip John O'Sullivan
- Risk and ReturnsUploaded byBilal Qazi
- factors effecting mobile customers satisfactionUploaded byAfsa Bhatti
- wyckoff articlesUploaded byThành Phạm
- Paulidor_Mac Lab Assignment # 2.docxUploaded byetrhaeth
- Applied Econ Slides 2010Uploaded byAlice Sapcaliu
- HaloUploaded bymagi
- TEST.docxUploaded byeswari
- 2. Thermal Inactivation of Lactoperoxidase in Goat, Sheep and Bovine Milk..Uploaded byRaul Blas Tello

- 10vsds dfbdfbUploaded bysaw4321
- 9bbbUploaded bysaw4321
- brainteasers7Uploaded bysaw4321
- 6brainteasersUploaded bysaw4321
- 5brainteasersUploaded bysaw4321
- 4brainteasersUploaded bysaw4321
- brainteasers2Uploaded bysaw4321
- brainteasersUploaded bysaw4321
- Q&A_ 300+ Finance Interview Questions « Leverage Academy ForumUploaded bysaw4321
- Research Challenge Official RulesUploaded bysaw4321
- five forceUploaded bybeharavamsimohan
- NASDAQOMXProposalforNYSE04012011Uploaded bySteven Wang

- Causas de La Deforestacion en InglesUploaded bySheyla Medaly
- IENG314(3)Uploaded byAbdu Abdoulaye
- Building Data ReportUploaded byuri20
- Autoregressive Model.xlsxUploaded byDare Reale
- 1.Aliah_RoslanUploaded bykareena23
- Difference Between Regression and Predictive ModellingUploaded byrphmi
- Joreskog&Sorbom - LISREL 8 - Structural Equation Modeling With Simplis Command Language (1998)_iki1pslUploaded bysoloenyale7510
- Factors Affecting Fuel SitesUploaded byFisha Fisha
- gretmman.pdfUploaded byfenomanana
- TensorFlow BasicsUploaded byAvinash
- 2010-05-08_053020_case5-18Uploaded byambermu
- Bio StatisticsUploaded byMichelle Iñigo Luba
- Lecture 2Uploaded byBarış Biçer
- SSRN-id3123733Uploaded byAlberto Sandel
- u07d1 Dummy Predictor Variable and Multiple RegressionUploaded byarhodes777
- 2Uploaded byAsri Tri Pakarti
- Extradural Hematomas - Measurement of Size by Volume Summation on CT ScanningUploaded byWalewska Pereira
- Wang Chen OpportunityUploaded byAgung Adiputra
- Characteristics of the Board of Directors AndUploaded byJamel Chouaibi
- Fan CovaUploaded byJose Camilo Diaz Granados
- exsoft2Uploaded bysipil123
- CHAPTER-2.docxUploaded byTin
- Basic Formulae for Mixed Effects Models in RUploaded byLuke Mceachron
- Resume Ekonometrika Bab 1Uploaded byFirsa Aulia
- Ts-1 Application of Quality Function Deployment in Instant Rice Noodle Product DevelopmentUploaded bypojjanee
- New Research Report of SheemaUploaded byParshant Garg
- 1-s2.0-003101829400122O-main.pdfUploaded byArdo Ramdhani
- Aging StudyUploaded byjetnguyenulis93
- CH14 Exercises SolutionsUploaded byhelloagainhello
- Berry Phenolics and Their Antioxidant ActivityUploaded byLyn Lynettelyn

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.